Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xphoisbot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

Xphoisbot
Operator:

Time filed: 18:13, Wednesday, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Not as of yet

Function overview: Checks Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues for usernames which have already been blocked indef

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: A low % of the editors listed in the category will have their userpages edited.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot, when manually run, scans 100 all of the editors listed at Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues and checks to see if they have an active indef block. If they do, the bot will remove the category from their user page.

Discussion

 * Is there a reason why "bot" isn't in the username of this bot? ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No reason, I'll request a username change and update the above - would that be sufficient? -- samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested a username change -- samtar talk or stalk 06:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Username has been changed from to  --  samtar talk or stalk 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the concern and yes, that's sufficient. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate why a bot with this function is necessary or link to a discussion where a need such a bot has been expressed? It is my concern that editors whom this bot identifies could be blocked for a different reason (e.g. 36 hours for vandalism), but the username issue has yet to be dealt with - and now may not be because the bot has taken them out of the category. Also, the bot's username does need to reflect the automated nature of the account, per policy.  Rcsprinter123    (tell)  00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the bot checked only for indefinite blocks, I would consider it uncontroversial. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The bot does indeed only act upon indef blocks, which I assumed would be uncontroversial as says above from the notice at the category page which states "Accounts should be removed from this category when they have been indefinitely blocked [...]". The username concern should hopefully be addressed above --  samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The category currently has ~800 entries in it, would you not be able to handle checking all the users instead of only 100 of them per run? — xaosflux  Talk 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Execution time would be a little above what I would like, but yes it could definitely be modified to do so - would this be preferable? -- samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

With the update settings, this seems fine to trial:
 * — xaosflux  Talk 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Under the new name that is (User:Xphoisbot). — xaosflux  Talk 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * last 25 edits show the result of the trial - I've had to tweak the edit summary as it was missing a wikilink for the blocking admin and a couple of spaces, but the test ran as expected and removed the categories from the user pages -- samtar talk or stalk 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The user page changes looked fine, would you tweak your summary a little, e.g.
 * From
 * ‎(Removing category from blocked editor - user was blocked by BethNaught)
 * To
 * (Removing CAT:UAA - user was indefinitely blocked by BethNaught )
 * I think that would make it more clear in the summary exactly what occurred, and why. — xaosflux  Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * D — xaosflux  Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do - gimme a mo to make the changes (template deactivated) -- samtar talk or stalk 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To verify changes are stable. — xaosflux  Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * -- samtar talk or stalk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Trial looked fine, low impact, low edit runs - this is good to do. You may want to look at adding a second task after this is running in production, to remove old WP:COIN notices from indef'ed users, you may be able to reuse most of your existing code. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.